Osorio v. Olga Taxi Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osorio v. Olga Taxi Co.

23 A.D.2d 730, 258 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4508

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 6, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 730 (Osorio v. Olga Taxi Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Osorio v. Olga Taxi Co., 23 A.D.2d 730, 258 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 9, 1964, insofar as it denied that portion of defendant’s motion which sought a protective order vacating the plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion for a protective order granted, with $10 costs. Special Term, having precluded plaintiff — -albeit conditionally — from offering evidence at the trial with respect to the items set forth in the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, should have granted the order of protection. By reason of the proscription of the preclusion order the plaintiff, in effect, was disabled from proving the cause of action alleged in his complaint. In" the circumstances there was no need for an examination before trial to elicit facts which, in the posture of the ease as then presented, could not be proven at the trial. Of course, if the plaintiff does, or has complied with the condition of the preclusion order he may thereupon, if s:o advised, serve a de nova notice [731]*731for examination. Appeal from order entered on November 16, 1964 unanimously dismissed, as academic, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Yalente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, entered on October 9, 1964, insofar as it denied that portion of defendant’s motion which sought a protective order vacating the plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion for a protective order granted, with $10 costs. Special Term, having precluded plaintiff — -albeit conditionally — from offering evidence at the trial with respect to the items set forth in the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, should have granted the order of protection. By reason of the proscription of the preclusion order the plaintiff, in effect, was disabled from proving the cause of action alleged in his complaint. In" the circumstances there was no need for an examination before trial to elicit facts which, in the posture of the ease as then presented, could not be proven at the trial. Of course, if the plaintiff does, or has complied with the condition of the preclusion order he may thereupon, if s:o advised, serve a de nova notice [731]*731for examination. Appeal from order entered on November 16, 1964 unanimously dismissed, as academic, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Yalente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 730, 258 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osorio-v-olga-taxi-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack